Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.6

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#651

Post by greggsy »

zahlman wrote: post #630
minimaxir wrote: post #26

The developer's guide ( https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model ) has some interesting semantic tips for using the model: > Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly. > Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the…

> ...tips for using the model: > Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.” I don't follow. Isn't "the model actually cares and will do what you say" a reason to use those kinds of instructions more liberally?

I think they’re saying it’s irrelevant now, possibly because it’s less likely to trail off on meandering thought bubbles.

Re: GPT-5.6

#652

Post by NamlchakKhandro »

217 wrote: post #72
Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Consensus itself does NOT matter, omp is objectively the best harness for power users yet it has 0 hn posts about it, zero. You're fully free to use and try anything and without caring about what others think is right

Because it's a bunch of extension on top of on pi

Re: GPT-5.6

#653

Post by verve_rat »

dbbk wrote: post #273
hk__2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.

I really love the Opus/Fable models but I'm honestly sick to death of the buggy product. The CLI always has some weird issue. Right now it doesn't even output messages before tool calls, it just swallows them and they disappear. I don't like OpenAI as a company, but they appear to have QA, and that is probably enough to get me to switch.

Using remote control I will choose a model but Claude will always revert to Haiku for the first turn.

Basic stuff about features that are more than a week old just get no attention at all. From the outside Athropic seems to be a clear feature factory.

Re: GPT-5.6

#654

Post by tezza »

simonw wrote: post #582
rsoto2 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this looks like the same shit from 4 years ago. give it up.

The first time I did this was actually less than two years ago - in October 2024 - and it's fun seeing how much better they've got since then: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Oct/25/pelicans-on-a-bicycle/

Absolutely, the change in quality over time is a great yardstick.

Nice to see you did the quality level comparisons and did three passes.

I've been using that technique myself on my image gen reviews[1] and it also works well in presentations and for personal study.

[1] https://generative-ai.review/2025/12/beast-mode-activated-op...

Re: GPT-5.6

#655

Post by bmurphy1976 »

Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

I use both. Both are great. But in terms of Desktop Apps I think Codex has the better UI. It's more straightforward, just works, and has small conveniences like the open in editor icon.

Claude's very bloated and convoluted by comparison. Maybe you need the bloat (Claude Design), but I prefer the more razor's edge efficiency of Codex.

Model wise, I can't really tell. They all do what I want them to do most of the time and go off the rails occasionally. The question is increasingly becoming who's faster and cheaper and gives me more tokens, not who's better.

Re: GPT-5.6

#656

Post by Cycl0ps »

daveguy wrote: post #603
tshaddox wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you conceptualize this as “there is an appropriate amount of brevity for each situation” then it would be expected for a better model to use different amounts of brevity if it gets better at determining the appropriate amount. My view is that popular models by default output wildly excessive amounts of prose for nearly every use case, so if this changes in a new model that’s a pure win.

The models don't get better, except when a new one is released. Their performance depends solely on the model training before release and how well you curate the context you feed it. That's it. Contrary to popular belief these things are not intelligent.

>The models don't get better, except when a new one is released.

My brother in Christ this entire thread is talking about the new model that was released

Re: GPT-5.6

#657

Post by ejpir »

blovescoffee wrote: post #119
wyre wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude Code is a massively bloated agent harness. Try Pi: https://pi.dev/

Pi is so “unbloated” that it’s extra effort to use. You can decide how much work to put into it. I get the trade off. But this is a big jump from CC. I’d recommend some middle ground like opencode.

what are you building that doesn't work with read,write,edit,bash and skills? Genuinely interested.

Re: GPT-5.6

#658

Post by cwillu »

greggsy wrote: post #651
zahlman wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...tips for using the model: > Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.” I don't follow. Isn't "the model actually cares and will do what you say" a reason to use those kinds of instructions more liberally?

I think they’re saying it’s irrelevant now, possibly because it’s less likely to trail off on meandering thought bubbles.

That would be contrary to a plain reading of the quote

Re: GPT-5.6

#659

Post by zahlman »

senko wrote: post #439

I love testing the new models by asking them to code a toy RTS game. Here's what Terra did: https://senko.net/vibecode-bench/2026/rts-gpt-5.6-terra.html (one try, in codex app, xhigh effort) Comparing this to other models, I find it similar to GPT-5.5 and a bit behind Sonnet 5. You can see how other models fared here: https://senko.net/vibecode-bench/ (you can also fetch the prompt and the the 5.6 Terra resulting cod…

Could we see the prompts, though?

Re: GPT-5.6

#660

Post by rrvsh »

zahlman wrote: post #630
minimaxir wrote: post #26

The developer's guide ( https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model ) has some interesting semantic tips for using the model: > Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly. > Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the…

> ...tips for using the model: > Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.” I don't follow. Isn't "the model actually cares and will do what you say" a reason to use those kinds of instructions more liberally?

Click through to the link - it states that the model tends to over correct on brevity instructions by omitting required information
Post reply on HN